We are currently remodeling

Skip Navigation

Main Navigation Bar (Deactivated)

Public Policy

The goal of the Disability Policy Collaboration is to impact national public policy for people with developmental disabilities, including those with cerebral palsy and intellectual disability, and their friends, families and loved ones.

Go back to top

Direct Care Personnel

Parents Wary of Claim That Federal Lawsuit Doesn't Seek DC Closure

CAPT Outreach magazine - January 2001

By Keith Hearn
Editor

The Philadelphia attorneys suing the state over services for Californians with developmental disabilities claim they are not seeking to close any developmental centers or cause a mass exodus of DC clients into community living situations.

They made that statement in asking a federal judge to keep DC supporters from arguing in court against certain aspects of the suit.

The DC supporters wanted to join the court action because they believe the suit could jeopardize at least some of the five DCs. The supporters include the parents of nine DC residents, their association (CASH/PCR) and the California Association for the Retarded.

The Sanchez v. Johnson suit seeks more money for California's community-based services. It wants the court to order "substantial equality in wages, benefits and payments" between DCs and community programs.

But it also asks the court to order that all developmentally disabled Californians be provided with "services which are integrated, community-based and noninstitutional."

The DC supporters saw this as a clear threat to move DC clients into community settings, even though the care may not be as good as in DCs. That's why they petitioned to join in the case as "intervenors."

The intervention was opposed by the eastern legal firm which filed the suit in May. It goes by the initials PILCOP and has pushed lawsuits to close institutions in other states.

PILCOP told the court that "aside from the five institutionalized individual plaintiffs, (the suit) does not ask this court to move one single person from California's institutions. It does not ask to transfer any funds away from California's institutions (or) to close any institutions."

PILCOP says all they seek is "that the wages and benefits of the men and women who work in California community services be substantially equal to those of the men and women who serve people ... in segregated institutional settings."

But the intervenors say this isn't true. They say the suit's language "makes abundantly clear" that the suit seeks "the ultimate transfer of all DC residents into community placement settings."

And while the intervenors do support greater funding for community care, they want to make sure any court-ordered community improvements are not to the detriment of the DCs.

Unfortunately, the intervenors' arguments did not persuade Judge Claudia Wilkins of the federal court in Oakland. In mid-November, she sided with PILCOP and did not let the DC supporters intervene.

She said she believes the suit does not seek closing any DCs and that none would necessarily be threatened because the Legislature could fund community improvements from any source, not just from the DC system.

The suit was filed as a class action on behalf of (1) all developmentally disabled individuals who "remain unnecessarily segregated into California's institutions" and (2) those now receiving community-based services and/or living with their families who are at risk of unnecessary institutionalization.

The suit claims that, even though the five DC clients named in the suit have been designated as appropriate for community placement, they remain in DCs simply because community-based services are not available.

The suit says these services aren't available because "community-based providers are unable to recruit, hire and retain the personnel required to expand and to create new community-based services."

And the reason for these hiring problems, the suit says, is "wages and benefits paid to direct care and professional staff in community-based services are, and have continuously been, far lower than wages and benefits in institutions."

Therefore, the suit says "people with disabilities remain in or are sent into segregated and isolated settings even though they are capable of handling and benefitting from living in the community." This includes those with severe physical and medical needs.

On the other hand, the intervenors maintain that even though certain DC residents are officially deemed capable of community living, that's not necessarily the right thing to do. Instead, they favor a full range of care options, including DC services where appropriate.

The lead plaintiff is Stephen Sanchez, 34, who has been at Lanterman DC since age 2. Other individual plaintiffs are two more at Lanterman, two at Fairview and one at Agnews.

The lead defendant is Health and Human Services Secretary Grantland Johnson. Other defendants are the directors of DDS, Social Services and Finance.

Joining PILCOP as organizational plaintiffs are the California Rehabilitation Association, a coalition of 13 United Cerebral Palsy chapters, the Autism Society of Los Angeles, Easter Seals of California, System Reform Inc. (an advocacy group) and Tierra del Sol (a day program provider).